38762 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 138 / Thursday, July 22, 2021 / Notices 

Native Hawaiian organizations stated in 

this notice may proceed. 

DATES: Lineal descendants or 

representatives of any Indian Tribe or 

Native Hawaiian organization not 

identified in this notice that wish to 

claim this cultural item should submit 

a written request with information in 

support of the claim to the University of 

Denver Museum of Anthropology at the 

address in this notice by August 23, 

2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne Amati, University of Denver 

Museum of Anthropology, 2000 E 

Asbury Avenue, Sturm Hall 146, 

Denver, CO 80208, telephone (303) 871– 

2687, email anne.amati@du.edu. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

here given in accordance with the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 

3005, of the intent to repatriate a 

cultural item under the control of the 

University of Denver Museum of 

Anthropology, Denver, CO, that meets 

the definition of an object of cultural 

patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001. 

This notice is published as part of the 

National Park Service’s administrative 

responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 

U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in 

this notice are the sole responsibility of 

the museum, institution, or Federal 

agency that has control of the Native 

American cultural item. The National 

Park Service is not responsible for the 

determinations in this notice. 

History and Description of the Cultural 

Item 

At an unknown date, one cultural 

item was removed from the state of 

Arizona. In 1951, the item was 

accessioned by the University of Denver 

Museum of Anthropology. The one 

object of cultural patrimony is a tripod 

bowl (DU#1691). The form and 

decoration of this object is consistent 

with items attributable to the Maricopa 

culture of the Gila River Indian 

Community of the Gila River Indian 

Reservation, Arizona and the Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of 

the Salt River Indian Reservation, 

Arizona. The object of cultural 

patrimony has ongoing historical, 

traditional, or cultural importance 

central to the Gila River Indian 

Community of the Gila River Indian 

Reservation, Arizona and the Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of 

the Salt River Indian Reservation, 

Arizona rather than being property 

owned by an individual. 

Determinations Made by the University 

of Denver Museum of Anthropology 

Officials of the University of Denver 

Museum of Anthropology have 

determined that: 

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), 

the one cultural item described above 

has ongoing historical, traditional, or 

cultural importance central to the 

Native American group or culture itself, 

rather than property owned by an 

individual. 

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there 

is a relationship of shared group 

identity that can be reasonably traced 

between the object of cultural patrimony 

and the Gila River Indian Community of 

the Gila River Indian Reservation, 

Arizona and the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community of the Salt 

River Indian Reservation, Arizona 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘The Tribes’’). 

Additional Requestors and Disposition 

Lineal descendants or representatives 

of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian 

organization not identified in this notice 

that wish to claim this cultural item 

should submit a written request with 

information in support of the claim to 

Anne Amati, University of Denver 

Museum of Anthropology, 2000 E 

Asbury Avenue, Sturm Hall 146, 

Denver, CO 80208, telephone (303) 871– 

2687, email anne.amati@du.edu, by 

August 23, 2021. After that date, if no 

additional claimants have come 

forward, transfer of control of the object 

of cultural patrimony to The Tribes may 

proceed. 

The University of Denver Museum of 

Anthropology is responsible for 

notifying The Tribes that this notice has 

been published. 

Dated: July 14, 2021. 

Melanie O’Brien, 

Manager, National NAGPRA Program. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15567 Filed 7–21–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1170] 

Certain Mobile Devices With 

Multifunction Emulators; Notice of 

Commission Determination Finding No 

Violation of Section 337; Termination 

of Investigation 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to affirm, 

with modifications, the Administrative 

Law Judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) issued on March 

16, 2021, finding no violation of section 

337 in the above-referenced 

investigation. The investigation is 

terminated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3042. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help 

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. 

Hearing-impaired persons are advised 

that information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

16, the Commission instituted this 

investigation based on a complaint filed 

by Dynamics Inc. (‘‘Dynamics’’) of 

Cheswick, Pennsylvania. 84 FR 42009– 

10 (Aug. 16, 2019). The complaint, as 

supplemented, alleges violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, or the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain mobile devices with 

multifunction emulators by reason of 

infringement of one or more of claims 1 

and 5–8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,827,153 

(‘‘the ’153 patent’’); claims 1–20 of U.S. 

Patent No. 10,032,100 (‘‘the ’100 

patent’’); claims 1–7, 9–13, 19, 21, and 

22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,223,631 (‘‘the 

’631 patent’’); and claims 1–16 of U.S. 

Patent No. 10,255,545 (‘‘the ’545 

patent’’). Id. at 42010. The 

Commission’s notice of investigation 

named as respondents Samsung 

Electronics Co., Ltd of Gyeonggi, 

Republic of Korea and Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield 

Park, New Jersey (collectively, 

‘‘Samsung’’). Id. The Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations is not 

participating in this investigation. 

On September 3, 2019, the ALJ set a 

sixteen-month target date of December 

16, 2020 for completion of the 

investigation. Order No. 3 (Sept. 3, 

2019). The Order set an evidentiary 

hearing for May 11–15, 2020. 

On November 26, 2019, the ALJ held 

a Markman hearing, and on January 31, 

2020, issued Order No. 7, construing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 138 / Thursday, July 22, 2021 / Notices 38763 

certain claim terms of the asserted 

patents. 

On May 20, 2020, the ALJ issued an 

initial determination granting 

Dynamics’ unopposed motion for partial 

termination of the investigation as to 

claims 5, 6, and 8 of the ’153 patent, 

claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9–11, 13–17, 19, and 

20 of the ’100 patent, claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 

9–13, 19, and 21 of the ’631 patent, and 

claims 2, 4, and 6–16 of the ’545 patent. 

Order No. 15 (May 20, 2020), 

unreviewed by Notice (June 15, 2020). 

Due to the COVID–19 pandemic, the 

ALJ amended the procedural schedule 

several times. On March 12, 2020, the 

Commission postponed all in-person 

hearings under section 337 scheduled 

within the next sixty days. See 85 FR 

15498 (Mar. 18, 2020). Thus, the ALJ 

issued Order No. 10, rescheduling the 

evidentiary hearing for June 22–26, 

2020. 

On April 6, 2020, the ALJ issued 

Order No. 12, resetting the target date to 

February 23, 2021 due to the COVID–19 

pandemic. Order No. 12 (Apr. 6, 2020), 

unreviewed by Notice (Apr. 24, 2020). 

On May 14, 2020, the Commission 

extended the postponement of all 

section 337 hearings. See 85 FR 30734– 

5 (May 20, 2020). On June 22, 2020, the 

Commission further extended the 

postponement of all in-person section 

337 hearings. 85 FR 38388–9 (June 26, 

2020). 

On August 11, 2020, the ALJ 

scheduled a virtual hearing for 

November 16–20, 2020 and reset the 

target date for July 16, 2021. Order No. 

24 (Aug. 11, 2020), unreviewed by 

Notice (Sept. 8, 2020). 

On March 16, 2021, the ALJ issued 

the final ID, finding no violation of 

section 337. The ID found that the 

importation requirement under 19 

U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B) is satisfied. ID at 28. 

Specifically, the ID found that ‘‘[t]he 

parties stipulated to facts establishing 

the importation requirement is met for 

both respondents’’ and that ‘‘Samsung 

does not dispute the Commission’s 

jurisdiction over this investigation or 

that the requisite importation or sale in 

connection with importation has taken 

place for each Accused Product.’’ Id. 

Accordingly, the ID found that the 

Commission has jurisdiction over this 

investigation and that the importation 

requirement has been satisfied. Id. 

With respect to the domestic industry 

requirement, the ID found that 

Dynamics had satisfied the domestic 

industry requirement for the ’100 

patent, but not the ’153, ’631, and ’545 

patents. ID at 183–84. For the ’153 

patent, the ID found that Dynamics 

failed to show it practiced any claim of 

the patent, but had shown it made 

significant investments under section 

337(a)(3)(A) and (B), 19 U.S.C. 

1337(a)(3)(A)–(B). Id. at 60–64, 158–79. 

Likewise, as to the ’631 patent, the ID 

found that Dynamics failed to show it 

practiced any claim of the patent, but 

had made significant investments for 

purposes of subsections (a)(3)(A) and 

(B). Id. at 127–31, 158–79. For the ’545 

patent, the ID found that Dynamics had 

shown it was ‘‘in the process’’ of 

practicing claim 1, but had not shown 

it was ‘‘in the process’’ of establishing 

a U.S. industry. Id. at 148–52, 180–83; 

see also 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). 

With respect to infringement and 

validity, the ID found that Samsung 

infringes claims 1 and 7 of the ’153 

patent and that Samsung failed to 

establish that those claims are invalid. 

ID at 45–58, 64–69. The ID also found 

that Samsung infringes claims 1, 4, 6, 

12, and 18 of the ’100 patent (except for 

claim 6 as to certain modified products), 

but that the asserted claims, except for 

claim 4 are invalid as anticipated or 

obvious by prior art. Id. at 83–88, 96– 

115. The ID further found that Samsung 

directly infringes claims 1, 4, 6, and 22 

of the ’631 patent, but that those claims 

are invalid as anticipated or obvious by 

prior art. Id. at 121–127, 131–140. The 

ID also found that Samsung directly 

infringes claims 1, 3, and 5 of the ’545 

patent, but that those claims are invalid 

for anticipation. Finally, the ID found 

that Samsung failed to carry its burden 

with respect to various additional 

affirmative defenses under 35 U.S.C. 

102(f), 116 (inventorship), or 112 

(written description and enablement). 

The ALJ recommended that the 

Commission should issue a limited 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders if it finds a violation but that no 

bond should be imposed on covered 

products that may be imported during 

the period of Presidential review. ID/RD 

at 186–91, 193. 

On March 29, 2021, Dynamics filed a 

petition for review of the ID, and 

Samsung filed a contingent petition for 

review. On April 8, 2021, Dynamics and 

Samsung submitted responses to each 

other’s petitions. 

On May 17, 2021, the Commission 

determined to review the ID in part. 86 

FR 27651–53 (May 21, 2021). 

Specifically, the Commission 

determined to review the ID with 

respect to the following: (1) For the ’153 

patent, claim construction of the term 

‘‘analog waveform’’ as well as the 

related infringement and technical 

prong analyses and the ID’s finding that 

the combination of Shoemaker and 

Gutman fails to render the asserted 

claims obvious; (2) for the ’100 patent, 

whether Doughty in combination with 

VivoTech renders obvious claim 4 and 

whether such issue was waived, 

whether claims 4 and 6 are infringed, 

and whether the domestic industry 

requirement is satisfied; and (3) for the 

’545 patent, the ID’s domestic industry 

findings. Id. at 27652. In connection 

with its review, the Commission 

requested that the parties brief their 

positions on certain issues. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ID, the 

parties’ submissions and the responses 

thereto, the Commission has determined 

to affirm, with modifications, the ID’s 

finding of no violation of section 337 in 

this investigation. With respect to the 

issues under review, for the ’153 patent, 

the Commission has determined to (1) 

adopt Samsung’s proposed construction 

of the claim limitation ‘‘analog 

waveform’’ to mean ‘‘a wave shape 

whose amplitude changes in a 

continuous fashion,’’ but clarify that the 

construction encompasses so-called 

real-world square waves; (2) affirm the 

ID’s finding that the accused Samsung 

Products infringe the asserted claims; 

(3) affirm the ID’s finding that Dynamics 

failed to adduce sufficient evidence to 

establish that its DI products practice 

any claims of the patent; and (4) reverse 

the ID’s finding that the combination of 

Shoemaker and Gutman fails to render 

the asserted claims obvious. For the ’100 

patent, the Commission has determined 

to (1) reverse the finding that Samsung 

failed to show that Doughty in 

combination with VivoTech renders 

claim 4 obvious; (2) clarify that claims 

4 and 6 are infringed; and (3) find the 

domestic industry requirement not met 

because the domestic industry claim has 

been found invalid. For the ’545 patent, 

the Commission has determined to take 

no position on the ID’s domestic 

industry findings related to a domestic 

industry in the process of being 

established. 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined to terminate the 

investigation with a finding of no 

violation of section 337. 

The Commission’s vote on this 

determination took place on July 16, 

2021. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: July 16, 2021. 

Katherine Hiner, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15552 Filed 7–21–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1